Talk:Nelson (England)

"Britain's most dangerous road"

Here are two URLs that justify this sentence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555583/Britains-most-dangerous-highway.html writes "There have been almost 100 deaths or serious injuries in the past decade on the 15-mile stretch of the A682 between junction 13 of the M65 and Long Preston. This is the only road in the highest risk category in a report by the Road Safety Foundation for the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP)."

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464163/Britains-dangerous-road.html states "The A682 fails on every collision type - junction and access road crashes, collisions with rigid roadside objects, overtaking crashes, pedestrian and cyclist collisions and motorcycle crashes.

The death-toll on this stretch of road is the equivalent of five major rail crashes within 10 years..."

--W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"Cope" section

Keogh report mentions the weekend "death spike" reported by http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10575837.New_figures_reveal_extent_of__unexpected__deaths_at_East_Lancashire_hospitals/ stated "NEW figures, released through a Freedom of Information request, show the number of deaths at East Lancashire’s hospitals was 26 per cent ‘above expected’ for weekend admissions last year, compared to 13 per cent ‘above expected’ for weekdays..."

Also, "The findings of the Keogh report are of grave concern, particularly in relation to Royal Blackburn and Burnley General Hospitals" --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"...friendly and welcoming"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218553/Father-12-whos-worked-branded-Britains-worst-behaved-dad-judge-hands-ANOTHER-Asbo.html stated "There has not been any problem in Nelson and he said he wishes never to go back to Burnley..." --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

VfD

This article was first "group" nominated for deletion on 17 July 2013 at 14:30 and then, separately some ten hours later at 23:16, but was kept. The deletion debate is here. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it.

• redirect (or delete) --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find anywhere to sleep there (not that anybody who was not suddenly incapacitated would ever want to.) --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm changing my recommendation to Keep {since myself and others have now expanded this article greatly (including adding two B&B's) and it is no longer such a sparse and forlorn embarrassment of an "article".} --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. As has been established in past discussions, the "sleep test" does not imply that the presence of lodging is an absolute requirement for a place to have an article (see Manhattan/Central Park). Also, a lack of content (even a complete lack) is not a deletion rationale. However, article needs an extensive rewrite per anr. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - City of 28,000+ and there is at least one hotel. Texugo (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What's it called? You're pointing to a hotel that's in the nearby (and larger) Burnley, not Nelson (England). The Oaks Hotel is one mile from the M65 (jct 12) and is about 2.5 miles from Burnley town centre, but more than 4 miles from Nelson. There are buses available from Burnley Bus Station that take you along the main road (Colne Road) and there is a bus stop outside the Oaks Hotel driveway: http://goo.gl/maps/lD1fQ

--W. Frank^e-mail_talk 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The address is listed as Colne Road, Nelson, Lancashire, BB10 2LS. Texugo (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're getting confused with POST TOWNS; have a look at the entry I wrote for it - I've posted a Google map link for it above so you can now see for yourself why I wrote what I did above.

It's a pity that anr only deals with stuff like hotels and restaurants. It would be really neat to have something analogous to "There's no reason to clutter up a guide with lists of places travellers will probably never bother to go to." While I'm in a didactic mood, I better point out that comments about unsavoury aspects of the destination in general are not "negative reviews". Comments about unsafe or boring areas, prostitution or drug use, police corruption, pollution, poor climate and so on; these should all be welcome as long as they are sincere and fair comments for the traveller's (or, in this case, careless traveller's) benefit--W. Frank^e-mail_talk 00:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether you are right or not about that particular hotel, I do find it hard to believe that a city of that size would not have a single place to stay. I don't know of any previous case where a city that big had to be redirected for not having a place to stay, and even recent vfd discussions have leant toward keeping articles for towns much much smaller even despite not having accomodations. Texugo (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the wonderfully stupid things about our current vfd policy is that an article is presumed guilty until Proven otherwise, so it should be for you to show that there is a commercial sleeping opportunity there - rather than in a nearby town like Burnley that does have somewhere to sleep & its own WV article. That's why I asked you to name the mythical hotel in Nelson. Over the years I've had lots of good stuff that I created summarily deleted because just one person voted put forward a deletion rationale and now I genuinely feel that I am helping the traveller by not suggesting that they visit even a few dreary, northern (to Londoners - southern to me of course) mill town. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 01:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I created the article a few months ago when I was consolidating the Lancashire and Greater Manchester articles and saw that many existing pages referenced Nelson, but that no article existed for the town itself. I had meant to add more to the page, but I'm afraid it inadvertently slipped down my list. Thanks W. Frank for your work on it: I really appreciate it! :) I would be in favour of keeping the article ( though I am a bit biased) if only because it's a large town that's mentioned elsewhere and it does now have a lot of good content. --Nick ^talk 02:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) W. Frank, if you'd like, I'll show you some really stunning photography (if I do say so myself) that I've done of old grain mills and steel mills in the derelict industrial districts of Buffalo. I think it's a big mistake to take as gospel truth your own personal opinion, or even a generally held opinion, that a place is uninteresting to travellers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Now you're both talking sense. I thoroughly agree that "it's a big mistake to take as gospel truth" personal opinions. That's precisely why we need to visit this nutty "Guilty until proven innocent policy" where (if we genuinely actually treat all editors as having equally valid opinions) only one person needs to maintain an objection and the article is poof!

By the way, if we're serious about this nutty vfd policy, someone really should slap some vfd templates on all these bulk nominated articles. (Don't blame Andyrom75 - some people have made calculated efforts to make the instructions at the top less than transparent). --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 02:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend trolling at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy instead of individual nominations, if only for the fact that these will be quickly archived, where your creativity will go unread. --Peter ^Talk 06:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't troll anywhere.

I'll consider your recommendation that some of the points raised here deserve to be considered at Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy instead of this individual nomination.

Currently, the fifth choice down in the left hand gutter is "Random article". I don't think it to be very good for self promotion to have "articles" that consist of a skeleton of empty templated headings and where the only "flesh" is one line such as "x is a city in y" to be displayed by that button. Sods law says that when a journalist hits this button they get randomly displayed a series of one liner embarrassments. My suggestion is that we either revise our status categorisation so that these kind of embarrassments are automatically allocated a status of "Stub - An article with little or no information in it, or not formatted even close to the manual of style. An article with no template or a former copyright violation would have this status" or we change things so that only articles of "Usable" or above are randomly displayed. If the former, then we need to change the categorisation that is automatically added so that some human consciously needs to upgrade it to "Outline" rather than it being labelled with that status by .--W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. This is now a moderately long article, so even if lack of content were a deletion criterion (It isn't, though sometimes it indicates a redirect candidate.), this article would survive. Also, Nick has given a reasonable rationale for creating it. Pashley (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. As this is a real place with almost 30,000 people, it presumably deserves an article, and if not, it would need to be redirected, not deleted. The fact that a single user wants to delete an article about a real place does not mean there is no consensus to keep. The policy here is that consensus does not have to be unanimous. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)m

To be fair, Ikan, consensus is not required on this page as the "guilty until proven innocent" rule applies. Nonetheless, the thing to do with this article remains keep, as the arguments of the lone commenter in favor of deletion ("there's no place to sleep" and "no traveller would be interested in visiting there") are, respectively, a) a misapplication of the sleep test, as my comment above intimated, and has been disproven in any case, and b) subjective, unproveable, and lacking any basis in policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. A few days ago I added a B&B which is near the town centre, so it now definitely passes the sleep test. AlasdairW (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Gave me a giggle reading the article. (I suppose that is not a policy criteria, but may help bring traffic to the site) Traveler100 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus: Kept. --Saqib (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:I don't wish to be churlish,Saqib, but you jumped the gun with the consensus summary here by at least twenty one hours. Although it was nominated for deletion at 22:35, 17 July 2013 nobody bothered to put a Vfd template on it until you yourself did so nine days ago at 00:32, 22 July 2013. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Rain soaked"?

It seems a bit harsh to single out poor old Nelson as "dismally rain soaked". Unless it has its own special micro-climate (meteorologically improbable)it is no more "rain soaked" than any other town in north west England. So surely we should be describing Colne, Blackburn, Bolton, Accrington, Bacup, Haslingden, Preston, Lancaster etc as all being "dismally rain soaked" too? Purely in the interests of fairness of course.

Yes, that does feel a bit harsh. We try to focus on a destination's positive attributes, so it might be worth changing. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Nick ^talk 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this article is maybe the exception that proves the rule, eh? BushelCandle (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If the idea is to describe climate for the region as a whole, "in the (dismally) rain-soaked northwest of England" might be a valid descriptor? K7L (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)